Didn't notice full-frame issue. Point taken.
(1) My previous post is still relevant over price and performance to the state of the art of the other camps, (2) as well with usability issues of this lens without 2 bodies, (3) and why so few lenses tend to offer SSM in the first place to seem such a wonder. Shouldn't SSM already have been implemented long ago? Sony's was in the market long before this trend even appeared. 0 general lenses for non A900 with this - and no one even has an A900
Later Edit: Alex, are you sure there even is a 24-70 VR? I don't remember any such... maybe I missed it.
Only lens that isn't
more expensive is the 18-200. All others are > and some by a wide margine as the mentioned 24-70 (+~$650) / 70-300 (+~$350) / 16-80 (+~$120) and more of the most used lenses in the whole line
I didn't mention bodies, but I see it like this (and no Canon in the picture): D60 ($760) sees the A350 ($800), and D40 ($500) sees the A200 ($500). Once again, I'm disregarding bodies, just asking about lens standards.
The Nikon AF-S 24-70 f/2.8G ED is $1,699.95.
The Sony CZ 24-70mm f/2.8 is $ 1,749.99.
Their difference is not $650 dollars...
Yes there is a price difference between the Nikon and Sony lenses. That's quite obvious. Why is the majority of Sony lenses more expensive than Nikon's? I don't know. Maybe because of different builds, might be due to Sony's 'relatively' new experience in the lens field, maybe it has to do with quality and performance. Perhaps it's Nikon keeping a fairly lower price because of a lack of a VR/IS system in the lens/camera.
How long has Nikon's 24-70mm been out on the market, and what was it's original sale price? We might see Sony lowering the prices of there lenses as time goes by...